IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

M.A.C.M.A.No.419 of 2019

DATE: 04.12.2025

Between:

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Divisional Manager

…..Appellant

AND

Ch. Ranga Rao and another

….Respondents

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company,

under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the award and decree dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.2374 of 2012, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.53,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, for the injuries sustained by the

respondent No.2-claimant in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.05.2012 at about 22:00 hours, the claimant and one Satyanarayana Raju were proceeding on a scooter from Kundanpally Village to Cheeryal Village and when they reached near Kundanpally X-Roads, they met with an accident with a lorry bearing No.AP-20-V-8186, which was wrongly parked in the middle of the road without any parking lights or warning signs. Due to the sudden obstruction, the claimant, who was a pillion rider, and the rider fell down and sustained multiple grievous injuries and fractures. They were first taken to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where Satyanarayana Raju succumbed to the injuries. For better treatment, the claimant was later shifted to Tulasi Hospitals, ECIL, Hyderabad. A case in Crime No.135/2012 was registered on the file of Keesara Police Station for offences under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC against the driver of the said lorry. The claimant filed the aforesaid claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by him.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1–owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The appellant–Insurance Company filed a counter and averred that the manner and mode of accident shows that there is contributory negligence on the part of rider of the scooter and that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive.

4. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the negligent parking of the lorry in the middle of the road without any indicator or signal. The Investigating Officer, through Ex.A2–Final Report, also concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent parking of the lorry. The Tribunal rejected the plea of contributory negligence. Thus the Tribunal, awarded total compensation of Rs.53,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum, payable by the respondent No.1 herein and appellant-Insurance Company jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal erred in accepting Ex.A2–Final Report showing negligence of the lorry driver. It is argued that the accident occurred due to the negligence of rider of scooter and that the lorry was not responsible. Thus it is contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-claimant supported the award and submitted that the evidence on record clearly established that the lorry was negligently parked without any indicators at night, causing the accident. It is further submitted that the insurer failed to produce any evidence to prove breach of policy conditions and, therefore, the Tribunal rightly fastened liability on the insurer.

7. A perusal of the material on record discloses that Ex.A1–FIR and Ex.A2–Final Report categorically fix negligence on the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-20-V-8186. The police, after investigation, concluded that the lorry was parked in the middle of the road at night without any parking lights, which was the direct cause of the accident. The insurer did not examine the lorry d